<p>Respond to this nasty column i found on the daily princetonian...</p>

<p>Conservatives favor dignity in campus sexuality debate</p>

<p>Michael A. Fragoso
Princetonian Columnist</p>

<p>****The 'Prince's' editorial board was correct; half the campus is in the closet on the issue of homosexuality. It's a contentious issue, but with only one side commonly voiced, debate is effectively nonexistent. Anyone who doubts this can simply look to the editorial pages last week (as the editors correctly pointed out). Three questions need to be asked: where are the opponents of the "homosexual agenda," why are they silent, and what do they have to say?</p>

<p>****The 'Prince' answered the first question rather well—the opponents to the official dicta concerning homosexuality are all over this campus. It is a shame, however, that this opposition was only concretely identified in the editorial with the persistence of "homophobic comments and harassment at the Street." The odious implication is that principled opposition to homosexuality results in harassment of homosexuals. No one should conflate the bigoted actions of some with the legitimate arguments of others.</p>

<p>***<em>But it's convenient for liberals to muddy the waters, since lumping reasoned arguments against homosexuality together with acts of bigotry allows them to avoid having to answer the arguments themselves. Principled opponents of homosexuality are unlikely to air their views publicly in such a chilling environment. For example, when I expressed my concerns about writing this piece to a friend of mine, the only encouragement he could give me was, "chill, the most they'll do is call you a neo-Nazi." There is a pervasive apprehension among the more conservative elements of campus that any public opposition to the various projects of the LGBT will simply be labeled as "hateful" and cause the author more trouble than the opposition is worth. By and large, it's a matter of prudence: why make a case if will only lead to angry slurs –</em>the substantive arguments being dismissed out of hand? While I would welcome evidence that this apprehension is misplaced, negative experiences over the past few years have led Princeton's conservatives into this mindset. This perception is why —<em>instead of complex and rational arguments from Princeton conservatives —</em>the campus gets pithy and anonymous statements of axiomatic fact, if any communication at all.</p>

<p>***<em>Some maintain that there are no principled arguments to be made —</em>that reason is but a fig leaf covering personal animus and religious bigotry. While I am not saying that this is necessarily the "view handed down by the University and the more outspoken campus groups," it is clear why this position must be opposed on its own grounds. It is the flip side of the argument made by some that reason used by homosexuals is just a fig leaf covering their deviance. An intelligent person would rightly dismiss both arguments.</p>

<p>****The fact is that there are many rational arguments that can be made against the various homosexual positions on campus. Take, for example, the common position that tolerating homosexuals means recognizing the legitimacy of homosexual acts. If someone happens to have been born attracted to people of the same sex, there is probably not much that can be done about it. The question, however, is not about what a person feels, but how a person acts. Homosexual acts undermine the dignity of the person, for they make the body a simple object of pleasure. How can someone claim dignity for himself when he uses his very body as a sex toy? It is also simply not true that being a homosexual necessitates participation in homosexual acts. Such a destructive claim subordinates rational choice to the vagaries of desire. Does being an alcoholic necessitate getting drunk?</p>

<p>****That was just one, brief, possible objection to homosexual conduct. If you disagree (as I expect many people will), I invite you to challenge it. I also invite those "closeted" conservatives on campus to "come out" and challenge the orthodoxy. Let's debate the substance of the issue at hand, and stop addressing the typical bogeymen of "intolerance" and "bigotry."</p>

<p>****Michael A. Fragoso is a sophomore from Princeton, N.J. </p>

<p>What an ass.</p>

<p>I love how he goes on and on about the "complex and rational arguments from Princeton conservatives," but then the only "one, brief, possible objection to homosexual conduct" he gives is inherently flawed.</p>